The first bit of new SCOTUS news was a retirement announcement of one of the long term personell (no not him):
The Court today announced that Kathleen L. Arberg, Public Information Officer of the Supreme Court of the United States, will retire on July 3 after serving 22 years as Public Information Officer and a total 40 years in the federal judiciary, 38 years spent at the Supreme Court.
As I expected, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (two opinions) announced another opinion day for Thursday. I think this will be standard the rest of the month with a likely possibility of three days at least once. So, Monday will be for orders from the preceding Thursday's conference and opinions; then, we will have another one. There being a few weeks left of the "working" term and over twenty opinions left.
The sole opinion -- some court watchers are starting to call them teases -- is not one of "hot button" ones. The case involved the reach of a 1980s federal criminal statute involving exceeding authorized computer access. One can go to the opinion for the specific wording, important for the 6-3 ruling that (to quote SCOTUSBlog) "overturned the conviction of a Georgia police officer who searched an official police database for personal purposes.
The case is of some importance, even if it doesn't touch the buttons of one about the Affordable Care Act or religious liberty vs. equality questions. The opinion is a bit longer than a usual Roberts Courts opinion and the majority and dissent show show special concern. The majority opinion was written by Barrett, so as a look at a new member is notable. The dissent is by Thomas, joined not surprisingly by Alito, but more so by Roberts. Roberts tries to avoid dissents, especially I would say if one of the "swing" members like the Trump trio will be in various instances do not go along. Or, in the unanimous jury case, when Kagan did.
The facts are not sympathetic -- a police was part of a sting operation (perhaps one finds them troubling) to see if he would for money check someone's record. The majority notes that even if his motive was bad, he still was authorized to enter the system and obtain the material not totally "off-limits to him" (to cite the summary if you wave over the link on the SCOTUS page). So, under the terms of the statute, he is in the clear. I'm not going to pretend to know if this is correct. Thomas' dissent on some level seems logical. I felt this way in the "fish" case (Yates, cited by the majority) though there Kagan dissented.
One thing flagged by certain people responding to the case (and touched upon by the majority, though it insists statutory interpretation alone will get you there) is that the dissent's approach is open-ended. Thomas has a point though -- yes, the federal criminal statutes are broad, targeting minor as well as major, but that doesn't solve the statutory issue. The police officer didn't have the authorization to search the system for the reason he did. There is an at least facially logical feel to that argument.
Again, I'm not going to pretend to know the right answer here, and part of my appropriate is go with trustworthy experts I respect. Here, that would be the Court liberals. And, the job of the Court is to make judgment calls. This case, even if the majority says it is mere "icing on the cake," shows that various things will be factored into that, including policy concerns. Criminal law can be a harsh mistress and in close calls a "rule of leniency" is appropriate. It is in part understood that when legislators pass laws that this is an implied overall principle factored in.
So, even if this is not the case everyone is looking for, there is some grounds to think the Court had a reason to give it some special place with a solo opinion day. One possibility, referenced on Sentencing Law and Policy Blog (not the Trump era any more, the blogger too Trump friendly, I'm giving it a try again), is that there is a sort of cross-ideological nature to the ruling. Clinton/Obama/Trump members joined together. That's going to happen. That's fine on some level. Things aren't 100% one way and implying that is wrong and annoying.
But, the Trump trio still shouldn't be there. It's nice on some level that Barrett here strongly calls out the dissent in a case that in some other case will not just help overreaching police officers (how ironic). But, I don't call the Trump trio tainted because I find their ideology bad. Yet again, I actually supported Barrett over Kavanaugh, even if she might in some cases get you worse results. (I question how many net, but it's possible.)
A bit of trivia -- other than a shadow docket matter, which resulted in a plurality opinion -- this looks like the first time Breyer was had assignment power. This would require both Roberts and Thomas to be in the minority. If Breyer actually joined those two in the minority, Alito would have assignment power as fourth in line. That would be a curious case. Anyway, more reason for Breyer to retire, right? Ha ha. Another bit: Justice Thomas tossed a media article link (Wall St. Journal; no shock), so that will be one more for the Internet link page.
One more thing: this conservative leaning blogger argues his act should be a crime, just not this one. But, I think that misses the point that the law is concerned with a national matter involving misuse of computer systems. This is separate from other overlapping wrongs that the act might involve. Misuse of a national computer system hurts the integrity of a national database, which is problematic in a way misusing a normal file cabinet is not. Well, this case has multitudes, huh?
Anyway, his actions very well do come off as more than a misuse of policy. The prosecutor's discretion is open the debate. And, specifically, the misuse of a computer system for financial gain should very well be criminal in at least some case. Given the Supreme Court has in various cases been concerned about overreaching federal (and at times state) laws and regulations, Congress is advised to target things a bit more narrowly.
==
A granddaughter of Justice Stevens (Hannah Mullen) said that she found a copy of the children's book Marshall, the Courthouse Mouse A Tail of the U.S. Supreme Court (read; authors). So, I found a cheap copy (around $5) on Ebay. It basically has a Mouse Supreme Court (case: the right to eat different cheeses each day) to provide information on how our own operates.
The story sounds like one for younger children, but there seems to be more than an expected level of detail. I'm not sure how it would sell to the intended audience. Pretty good art. I think the Daffy runs for President book (different author) was better. Plus, when I sent a letter to the editor about it, a local newspaper actually printed it.
She also noted that her fiance is reading two history of U.S. law books by Lawrence Friedman -- I read him a while back and he still (at around 90) sometimes pops up at the Verdict/Justia page. I might just have to get his latest updated history of U.S. law volume. He's quite readable for us educated civilians who are not experts in the fields we write about.
If all this seems like so many self-proclaimed "textualists" dancing on the head of a pin, just keep in mind that there are 23 remaining cases to be decided in the next three weeks — at least a half dozen of them on major subjects with pins much larger than this one.
And, there are three and a half weeks left in the month, the final Monday likely a "clean-up" Order Day. So, that means about seven opinions a week (again, only three were handed down this week in two opinion days), so they are going to have to start to get a bit busy. On that front, on Friday they already just bit the bullet and announced two opinion days (Monday and Thursday) already, which we can basically assume will be standard, at the very least. Twenty-three with six opinion days is about four each, including some big ones. That's a bit much at the current rate.
Okay, no Friday action.
---
* This is getting to be a pain regarding Sen. Sinema's opposition to abolishing the filibuster. Yes, her comments on the issue are both bad and at times simply moronic.
But, no, she
is not a DINO. Damn it. She repeatedly, on key issues, supports the
Democrats. Democratic control relies on her and Manchin. Her position
is also different than Sen. Mark Kelly, voted in a different election
with other benefits like being an astronaut and spouse of Gabrielle
Giffords. Also, her term ends in 2025. People act like she is running
for re-election next year or something. The comments come off as
ignorant.
I GET IT. People are upset, disgusted, and feel
somewhat hopeless. But, the above doesn't change. Nor, does the fact
she isn't the only Democrat that missed the 1/6 Commission vote, her
vote did not really matter, and she did not hide her support of the
Commission. She's an easy target though. Sure.
Fighting a problem requires understanding its true breadth.